Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, K. LAKSHMAN, JJ.
M/s. Gold Stone Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors - Appellants
Versus
Sri M.S. Murthy, S/o. M.G. Rao and Ors - Respondent
I.A.No.1-4 of 2014, 1, 2 of 2017, 1, 2 of 2018, 2-5 of 2019 In OSA No.54, 56-59 of 2004
Decided On : 20-12-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 97Or.XXI Rule 97-101, 13 - Section 54 - Implead applications - Remand orders - Serious issues of fraud practised by appellants and their predecessors in interest on the Courts- both the District Court and the High Court of A.P, and also collusion in disposal of various applications affecting third parties in possession /respondents in these OSAs are raised in these OSA - learned Single Judge of this Court had passed a common order in claim petitions filed by the respondents in the OSAs under Or.XXI Rule 97-101 CPC in E.P.3 in C.S. allowing them. He also passed order dismissing an Application filed by the appellants in C.S. on the file of this Court - Supreme Court of India, by orders passed set aside the common order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in OSA were remitted back for fresh consideration to this Court. This is the third remand of the matter to this Court -
Finding of the Court:
Various implead applications filed in OSA mentioned above, which arise out of decision of the learned Single Judge in claim petitions, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any impleadment of any party in a claim petition filed by somebody else and the only remedy of such party is to file a separate claim petition, if so advised. This is because each of them would also need to support their pleas by placing evidence before this Court, which cannot be done at the appellate stage. - As regards the implead applications filed in OSA is concerned, we are of the opinion that since there was no remand of the said OSA by the Supreme Court to this Court in its order dt.05.03.2014 in Civil Appeal, it cannot be said to be pending and therefore, these implead applications are not maintainable - Accordingly, all the implead applications in all the OSAs are rejected -
Result: Application is Rejected
ORDER :
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Introduction:
All these Original Side Appeals (for short ‘the OSAs’) arise out of CS No.14 of 1958 on the file of this Court. There were several judgments / orders passed by this Court and there have been 3 remand orders from the Supreme Court of India, the last one being on 5.3.2014.
Serious issues of fraud practised by appellants and their predecessors in interest on the Courts- both the District Court, Ranga Reddy and the High Court of A.P, and also collusion in disposal of various applications affecting third parties in possession /respondents in these OSAs are raised in these OSAs.
2.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed a common order dt.26.10.2004 in claim petitions/ Application No.585 of 2002, Application No.708 of 2002, Application No.s 294 of 2003, Application No.296 of 2003, Application No.1319 of 2003, Application No.s 1320 of 2003 filed by the respondents in the OSAs under Or.XXI Rule 97-101 CPC in E.P.3 of 1996 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 allowing them. He also passed order dismissing an Application No.994 of 1995 filed by the appellants in C.S.No.14 of 1958 on the file of this Court.
3.A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice B.Prakash Rao and Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy set aside the above order of the learned Single Judge on 23.6.2006 in OSA No.s 52-59 of 2004.
4.The Supreme Court of India, by orders passed on 5.3.2014, in CA.No.3327 of 2014, 3328 of 2014, CA.No.3329 of 2004, CA.No.3330 of 2004 and CA.No.3331 of 2004, set aside the common order dt.23.6.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in OSA No.s 52-59 of 2004 and the OSA No.s 54, 56, 57 and 58 of 2004 were remitted back for fresh consideration to this Court. This is the third remand of the matter to this Court.
5.Post-remand by the Supreme Court, the present common order is being passed in these OSAs.
6.Henceforth, the respondents in the OSAs will be referred to as claim petitioners and the applications filed by them under Or.XXI Rule 97-101 CPC will be referred to as ‘claim petitions’.
7.For better appreciation of the issues raised herein, the following index is given:
| Part I: | Events prior to 1948 up to 29-3-1996, the date of alleged delivery of possession to appellants. | Para 17 pg.17 to para 77 pg.37 |
| Part II: | Events between 29.3.1996 from filing of Applications in EP 3 of 1996 by 3rd parties under Order 21 Rule 97, up to date of 1st Remand order of Supreme Court dt.14-8-1997. | Para 78 pg.37 to para 89 pg.45 |
| Part III | Events subsequent to 1st Remand order of Supreme Court on 14-8-1997 up to 23-11-2001, 2nd Remand order of Supreme Court. | Para 90 pg.45 to Para 99 pg.48 |
| Part IV | Events from 23-11-2001 order of Supreme Court up to 5-3-2014 when Supreme Court passed the 3rd Remand Order. | Para 100 pg.49 to para 136 pg.62 |
| Part V | Events after 3rd Remand order of Supreme Court dt. 5-3-2014 and Discussion of the points argued and findings thereon in the present OSAs. | Para 137 pg.62 To Para.235 pg.100 |
| Part VI | Whether the claim petitioners / respondents in the O.S.A.s have established their right, title and interest in the properties claimed by them in the claim petitions. | Para 236 pg.100 to para 289 pg.117 |
| Part VII | Contentions 1 to 15 raised in the written submissions of appellants, discussion and findings thereon. | Para 290 pg.117 to para 362 pg.135 |
| Part VIII | Whether OSA.No.59 of 2004 also gets reopened consequent to the concession made by the appellants before the Supreme Court and whether the said OSA is also required to be decided afresh by this Court & Question whether judgment of High Court in OSA 59 of 2004 dt.23-6-2006 against which no SLP was filed, is also void on account of coram non judice and finding thereon. | Para 363 pg.135 to para 400 pg.145 |
| Pa | ||
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
